"Lars J. Aas" wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 08:18:13AM -0400, Earnie Boyd wrote: > : Paul Eggert wrote: > : > I think this idea is a blind alley. If we want to use modern shell > : > features, then we should go ahead and require the "configure" user to > : > have a modern shell. That's much simpler. We've already started down > : > that path with the LINENO changes. > : > : Wouldn't this be solvable by autoconf supplying it's own Shell > : executable? Let's see...uhm...autosh sounds like a good name. It > : wouldn't need to be interactive friendly so perhaps a starting point > : would be the old Linux ash shell. > > Then you can only use Autoconf on systems with C compilers. If that wasn't > the case, I would be all for this :) >
How many systems with Bourne compliant shells don't have a C compiler? How many systems without GNU m4 that need to build it? IMNSHO a C compiler should be a requirement of autoconf even if C isn't the language being autoconfigured. Earnie. _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
